Vague, unforeseen circumstances, insufficient to condone delay in filing pleas: Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that simply blaming “unforeseen circumstances” without evidence is not enough to justify a delay in filing a plea against an earlier court order. Justice Sumeet Goel made the observation while rejecting UT Chandigarh’s request to condone a 173-day delay in challenging the acquittal of a juvenile.
“Merely attributing the delay to unforeseen circumstances, without any supporting details or evidence to substantiate these claims, does not meet the legal threshold for condonation”, the Justice Goel asserted. Virtually rapping the UT for its failure to adopt a proactive approach, the court added the applicant-State had neither shown continuous interest in the case, nor presented any exceptional or unavoidable circumstances that could explain such an extensive delay.
The application was submitted by the UT in connection with an acquittal judgment issued by the Juvenile Justice Board on March 21, 2018. But UT, in its application, provided only a cursory explanation, citing that the Legal Remembrancer-cum-Director of Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration, instructed the public prosecutor to file the revision petition against the acquittal judgment, even though the prescribed period for filing such a plea had already lapsed.
The court found the explanation from UT Chandigarh was wholly lacking in credibility or substantive detail. Justice Goel observed, “A perusal of the averments clearly show that no reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the applicant-state to condone the delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The instant application is bereft of any specific details/particulars which may reflect bona fide on part of the applicant-State in pursuing its case.”
Justice Goel made it clear that the justification was “mechanical” and insufficient for condonation. The court added the explanation suggested an assumption that “to seek condonation of delay is a matter of right, regardless of the reasons.”
Justice Goel asserted that the State was typically afforded some latitude in delay condonation matters, but warned that leniency had limits. The court observed, “Indubitably, the state has to be accorded some latitude while considering the plea for condonation of delay filed by the state but the same cannot be stretched to an extent that the Limitation Act is rendered otiose.”
Making it clear that the authorities were fully aware of the 90-day limitation for filing a revision petition, Justice Goel observed the delay was both excessive and unexplained. “The applicant-state has failed to provide any concrete explanation or document to demonstrate its genuine efforts in pursuing the matter within the prescribed time limit. No cause, much less sufficient cause, as required in law, has been shown to justify or condone the significant delay of 173 days in filing the accompanying revision petition,” the court held.
After evaluating the explanation and the surrounding circumstances, the court concluded that the delay condonation plea was without merit. Justice Goel observed, “The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and can hardly be said to be a reasonable or even a proper explanation.”
